Should Buddhists be tolerant and respectful of other religions? I say yes, for myself, but also recognize that to tolerate intolerance may also be important. Tolerance and respect cannot be forced. For those of you who recognize some intolerance in your own views, is there a reason you can point to? I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and have realized it would be hypocritical for me to expect others to be more tolerant when I'm also intolerant of their intolerance, lol. Might be good to talk about though, maybe, to clear the air?

Why are people intolerant? Where is the fine line crossed from critical thought into aversion? Do you ever feel uncomfortable on this forum, with expressions of religious intolerance by others? Is there a danger in being too open minded or should we be doing more to promote open-mindedness and tolerance among ourselves?

Some thoughts from Bikkhu Bodhi, that Mike has shared frequently:

"Buddhist tolerance springs from the recognition that the dispositions and spiritual needs of human beings are too vastly diverse to be encompassed by any single teaching, and thus that these needs will naturally find expression in a wide variety of religious forms. The non-Buddhist systems will not be able to lead their adherents to the final goal of the Buddha's Dhamma, but that they never proposed to do in the first place. For Buddhism, acceptance of the idea of the beginningless round of rebirths implies that it would be utterly unrealistic to expect more than a small number of people to be drawn towards a spiritual path aimed at complete liberation. The overwhelming majority, even of those who seek deliverance from earthly woes, will aim at securing a favorable mode of existence within the round, even while misconceiving this to be the ultimate goal of the religious quest.

To the extent that a religion proposes sound ethical principles and can promote to some degree the development of wholesome qualities such as love, generosity, detachment and compassion, it will merit in this respect the approbation of Buddhists. These principles advocated by outside religious systems will also conduce to rebirth in the realms of bliss -- the heavens and the divine abodes. Buddhism by no means claims to have unique access to these realms, but holds that the paths that lead to them have been articulated, with varying degrees of clarity, in many of the great spiritual traditions of humanity. While the Buddhist will disagree with the belief structures of other religions to the extent that they deviate from the Buddha's Dhamma, he will respect them to the extent that they enjoin virtues and standards of conduct that promote spiritual development and the harmonious integration of human beings with each other and with the world."

Bikkhu Bodhi,Tolerance & Diversity

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

"Tolerance" is one of those yummy notions that everyone loves to love. More -- as regards others -- it is a good exercise, even when just faking it.

But on a serious note, I think that if someone invents for themselves something called "religion," they will invariably come to a point where they have to ask, "Why am I tolerating this stuff?" or some similar question. Without a willingness to investigate and find an actualized answer to such questions, "religion" and the "tolerance" it extols remain in the realm of intellectual and emotional Boy Scout-ism.

To reflect back with seriousness is probably better than to extol what may be a pretty good thing.

I very rarely see intolerance of other religions on these forums, though perhaps that's because I define tolerance differently than you. To me it is not intolerance to declare one teaching different than another teaching, for example to say Buddhism and Christianity teach different things. Likewise, it is not tolerance to say "all religions teach the same". Tolerance is saying "You follow a different path than I follow and that's OK."

christopher::: wrote:For those of you who recognize some intolerance in your own views, is there a reason you can point to?

Because this experience is dukkha, and working skillfully with dukkha takes practice.

I think it's worthwhile to have open discussions in which polite disagreement is tolerated. With regard to the OP, I'd say yes, everyone should be tolerant of other religions. On the other hand, to what extent should we be tolerant of circumstances we might be able to improve through skillful action? In other words, should we merely tolerate misunderstanding, or should we seek to address it? Should we merely tolerate misrepresentations of the Buddha's teachings (intended or not), or should we seek to clarify them? And it is possible to engage in this type of activity while still having the mindframe of tolerance?

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

There was an excellent book on this topic called " Tolerence " ( appropriately enough ) by Bhikkhu Kantipalo, now out of print I think. The Bhikku argued that tolerence means that with live peaceably alongside that with which we dont agree, not that we reduce everything to a soup. He pointed out that the Buddha described the Dhamma that he taught as " the only way " to Nibbana. That therefore tolerence in Buddhist terms means recognising whatever merits lay in other religions and philosophies without ever losing sight of the absolutely unique nature of The Buddhadharma. Tolerence of Christianity for example includes allowing its followers to freely practice their belief system without let or hinderance, it can also mean acknowledging that within its ranks and body of belief Christianity has much that is admirable. However Buddhist tolerence also makes it clear that at the heart of Christianity lies a basic error, a block to Enlightenment, to whit, the belief in an objectified God figure.

The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

christopher::: wrote:Should Buddhists be tolerant and respectful of other religions? I say yes, for myself, but also recognize that to tolerate intolerance may also be important.

Of course one should be tolerant, but there are also limitations, and there are contexts. Right now in Wisconsin there is a trial going on were a man is being prosecuted for the death of his 11 yr old daughter who died from diabetes. Rather than seek medical help, he and his wife prayed for her. How far and in what way does tolerance extend?

Of theist Makkhali Gosala, the Buddha stated it would have better that he never been born because his religious beliefs were for the detriment of all humankind, in that Makkhali Gosala denied the efficacy of moral action (AN I.33). Is that intolerant of the Buddha, Christopher?

Is the Buddha intolerant when he says:

"If the pleasure and pain that beings feel are caused the creative act ofa Supreme God [Issara-nimmana-hetu], then the Niganthas [Jains] surelymust have been created by an evil Supreme God." MN II 222

How about here, is the Buddha intolerant:

"Again, monks, I [the Buddha] approached those ascetic and brahmins and said to them: 'Is it true, as they say, that you venerable ones teach and hold the view that whatever a person experiences...all that is caused by God's creation?' When they affirmed it, I said to them: 'If that is so, venerable sirs, then it is due to God's creation that people kill, steal ...[and otherwise act badly]. But those who have recourse to God's creation as the decisive factor, will lack the impulse and the effort doing this or not doing that. Since for them, really and truly, no (motive) obtains that this or that ought to be done or not be done...."' AN 3.61?

Are the suttas intolerant when we find them saying that God/Brahma state:

"God truthfully answers [the questions of the Buddha] in succession: 'Good sir, those views I previously held are not mine; I see the radiance the world of God as passing; how could I say that I am permanent and eternal?'" MN II 222? I am sure there are those theists who find this very offensive.

How this:

'As far as the suns and moons extend their courses and the regions of the sky shine in splendour, there is a thousandfold world system. In each single one of these there are a thousand suns, moons, Meru Mountains, four times a thousand continents and oceans, a thousand heavens of all stages of the realm of sense pleasure, a thousand Brahma worlds. As far as a thousandfold world system reaches in other words, the universe], the Great God is the highest being. But even the Great God is subject to coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be.' AN X 29?

And then there is this:

In Digha Nikaya 24 where the Buddha states:

"There are some ascetics and brahmins who declare as their doctrine that all things began with the creation by God, or Brahma."

And this singular god is characterized so:

"That Worshipful God, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever."

which is a nice characterization of the brahmanical notion of the creator God one finds in the early Brahmanical and Ishvara literature, and it seems to fit for most every other creator God notion that has come down the pike.

The Buddha goes on in this discourse, using mythic language, to give a biting satirical re-telling of the creation myth of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad making it quite clear that God is not quite what the absolute entity it imagines itself to be. It is not the creator, and we can see in this discourse by the Buddha and in other related ones that the idea of a single, absolute cause for the multiplicity of things, an infallible source of revealed knowledge that was different in kind from ordinary human knowledge, an unconditioned being that participates in any way in (even only as a witness to) the changes of human experience, and any kind of being that can interfere with the natural consequences of karma is rejected by the Buddha.

So, what is tolerance and what is intolerance? You really need to define tolerance here.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Well, the Buddha was particularly gifted in gearing his message appropriately to his audience. We're not necessarily so gifted. So even if we use the words of the Buddha, if the timing is off, if the circumstances aren't quite right, then it might not be skillful.

I guess that's what emoticons are for ...

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

christopher::: wrote:Should Buddhists be tolerant and respectful of other religions? I say yes, for myself, but also recognize that to tolerate intolerance may also be important. Tolerance and respect cannot be forced. For those of you who recognize some intolerance in your own views, is there a reason you can point to? I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and have realized it would be hypocritical for me to expect others to be more tolerant when I'm also intolerant of their intolerance, lol. Might be good to talk about though, maybe, to clear the air?

Why are people intolerant? Where is the fine line crossed from critical thought into aversion? Do you ever feel uncomfortable on this forum, with expressions of religious intolerance by others? Is there a danger in being too open minded or should we be doing more to promote open-mindedness and tolerance among ourselves?

Some thoughts from Bikkhu Bodhi, that Mike has shared frequently:

"Buddhist tolerance springs from the recognition that the dispositions and spiritual needs of human beings are too vastly diverse to be encompassed by any single teaching, and thus that these needs will naturally find expression in a wide variety of religious forms. The non-Buddhist systems will not be able to lead their adherents to the final goal of the Buddha's Dhamma, but that they never proposed to do in the first place. For Buddhism, acceptance of the idea of the beginningless round of rebirths implies that it would be utterly unrealistic to expect more than a small number of people to be drawn towards a spiritual path aimed at complete liberation. The overwhelming majority, even of those who seek deliverance from earthly woes, will aim at securing a favorable mode of existence within the round, even while misconceiving this to be the ultimate goal of the religious quest.

To the extent that a religion proposes sound ethical principles and can promote to some degree the development of wholesome qualities such as love, generosity, detachment and compassion, it will merit in this respect the approbation of Buddhists. These principles advocated by outside religious systems will also conduce to rebirth in the realms of bliss -- the heavens and the divine abodes. Buddhism by no means claims to have unique access to these realms, but holds that the paths that lead to them have been articulated, with varying degrees of clarity, in many of the great spiritual traditions of humanity. While the Buddhist will disagree with the belief structures of other religions to the extent that they deviate from the Buddha's Dhamma, he will respect them to the extent that they enjoin virtues and standards of conduct that promote spiritual development and the harmonious integration of human beings with each other and with the world."

Bikkhu Bodhi,Tolerance & Diversity

What Bhikkhu Bodhi says is true. I think Buddhadasa's No Religion is also relevant.

When it comes to respect, I think it depends on the context. When you're among Buddhists or among people who aren't adherents of these religions, I think it's okay to poke fun at them, even constructive. The local Zen monk here once remarked jokingly that monotheism is bulls*** during a dharma talk. I don't think it would necessarily be appropriate to speak like that around monotheists, though. Richard Dawkins is an example of a person who always speaks that way and he has some atheist opponents, like me, who don't like that because it makes atheists like bad and actually acts as a fuel or catalyst for religious extremism.

The Buddha did not speak the way Richard Dawkins; he did not practice a campaign of defaming other views or promoting his own. But under certain circumstances, he mocked or insulted opponents, such as the Brahmins. Because sometimes the rawness of mockery or insult can drive a point far more clearly than the meekness of speech from a monk like Bhikkhu Bodhi. Sometimes strong speech is in fact necessary.

Peter wrote:I very rarely see intolerance of other religions on these forums, though perhaps that's because I define tolerance differently than you. To me it is not intolerance to declare one teaching different than another teaching, for example to say Buddhism and Christianity teach different things. Likewise, it is not tolerance to say "all religions teach the same". Tolerance is saying "You follow a different path than I follow and that's OK."

I think there is some mild intolerance of Christianity. Some people here might be tempted to engage in arguments with evangelical Christians for no other sake than to argue, to feel a sense of victory, but this is mild, since nobody here would engage in violence against them, refuse to marry Christians, refuse to hire a Christian employee, etc.. There's also of course some mild bigotry against Mahayana among a small minority of people here. "Bigotry," might be a wrong word to use, though, since it sounds so strong. "Strong bias" might be better.

Ngawang Drolma wrote:I feel that other religions should be tolerated and respected (in most cases, unless they cause harm). However, I don't think that means that we have to agree with them or proclaim that they are true.

I would agree Ngawang Drolma, I would add that on occasion we may need to proclaim that according to the teachings of The Buddha, they are untrue.

The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

I feel it's important to be respectful of other religions, as all religions have noble and worthy goals.

But religion is just a tool, it's like a hammer -- depending on the user, a hammer can be used to build a homeless shelter or to bludgeon someone to death.

So while all religions are worthy of respect in and of themselves, I don't think tolerance of all religious beliefs is skillful -- religious extremism is quite possibly the biggest danger to this planet and should be regarded as such, not tolerated.

"The serene and peaceful mind is the true epitome of human achievement."-- Ajahn Chah, Living Dhamma

"To reach beyond fear and danger we must sharpen and widen our vision. We have to pierce through the deceptions that lull us into a comfortable complacency, to take a straight look down into the depths of our existence, without turning away uneasily or running after distractions." -- Bhikkhu Bodhi

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

I will just add that syncretism and perennial philosophy ie the belief that all religions point to the same essential truth, is something that should be approached with caution, in my opinion. Not because it's wrong but because it is often premature and harmful for one's spiritual development.

When Thich Nhat Hahn talks about the parallels between Buddhism and Christianity, we should remember that he has a better part of a century's worth of hardcore daily Buddhist practice under his belt. He is speaking from a deep recognition, rather than professing pleasant intellectual platitudes.

These "truths" are easy to believe but difficult to really experience. How can one maintain that all religions point to the same thing when one doesn't even know what one religion points to?

I, for one, struggle with basic things like living responsibly every minute. I procrastinate, make excuses, I am lazy and lose temper sometimes. So personally I don't feel I have the right to even touch certain things anymore until I've got the basics down pat.

So while I've seen posters here displaying quite a bit of resistance to syncretism and perennial philosophy, I wouldn't equate that with intolerance. Sure, building bridges and showing appreciation for diversity and richness of the world's spiritual traditions and their methods is a very important thing. This is the "political" aspect. As far as personal practice is concerned it is quite different. Each are sincere aspects of our functioning, but practice to get to the root needs to be focused and disciplined and mere appreciation of a wide range of approaches is not enough. In fact it can harmful. Rather what I feel is needed is a 100% commitment to a particular practice.

I will just add that syncretism and perennial philosophy ie the belief that all religions point to the same essential truth, is something that should be approached with caution, in my opinion. Not because it's wrong but because it is often premature and harmful for one's spiritual development.

The problem with " syncretism and perennial philosophy ie the belief that all religions point to the same essential truth," is that there is invariably a redefintion of one or other religion in terms of another, which certainly can be seen as highly disrespectful and even worse. Those who object to the "same essential truth" position get characterized as lacking insight, as being sectarian, narrow and probably not nice to dogs.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

I think we (Buddhists) should be tolerant of their BELIEFS, but certain actions should be condemned/opposed. I am most concerned with the activities of Christian missionaries who exploit the tolerance of traditional Buddhist countries to conduct flagrant missionary activities. One example that bugged me in particular was in Myanmar, where a group of Christians went to a monastery and volunteered to teach the monks English, which the abbot assented to. They used the 'classes' as a cover for preaching to the monks, using the Bible as their 'textbook' and showing one of those hammily acted, badly shot movies about the life of jesus that they make in the bible belt. The abbot there continued to allow this even after discovering their methods. This kind of activity should be opposed, in my opinion. It's funny that they don't do this kind of thing in Saudi arabia, do they? Of course, i'm not advocating violence towards these people, but they should be discovered and deported for such activities, and i think Buddhist organisations need to be more proactive in combatting this kind of activity. Apparently this kind of stuff is having a big impact in Sri Lanka too. If we're not careful, traditional Buddhist culture could really be threatened by this activity: Buddhists shouldn't be so tolerant they allow themselves to be targetted.

I think i'm probably oversensitive to this issue because of my circumstances. No one in my family is Buddhist, in the United States. Not one of my closest friends is Buddhist. Most are Jewish. My wife's family is Buddhist, but its not something that we talk about, the dharma.

My parents are Unitarian Universalists, and that's how I was raised. Tolerance is probably one of the most important things for UUs. I teach at a Baptist Christian University in Japan. About half the faculty is Christian, half Buddhist. Most of our students are Buddhists, but don't practice or study the dharma that deeply. The atmosphere at our University is very tolerant, the Christians are respectful of the Buddhists, and visa versa. Religion isn't really a topic of discussion, actually. I guess that's a form of tolerance, in some ways. We just treat one another as people, fellow human beings. Religion doesn't come up as something to discuss.

While I've been drawn strongly to the dharma since the early 1980s I've also gone to Hindu and Taoist texts/writing at times, for inspiration and guidance. Native American Indian wisdom, as well. I'm not attracted to Christianity, Judaism or Islam, but I have close friends who practice, who seem to benefit in their lives from their faith. I find it all fascinating, the spiritual quest of humanity. The various paths are not all the same, but when people meet the world with an open heart and open mind, I don't really notice any differences. Like a guy who loves classical music hugging his friend who's into punk rock, the music is not primary, its simply part of the background. It's their connecting as two friends, as humans, that matters.

For me, a person's spiritual beliefs are something personal, that I respect, without judgment. And when others say critical things I tend to defend other faiths. I've noticed that this gets me into debates at times, and makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, sometimes, in discussions with fellow Buddhists, where other faiths are mentioned and criticized.

Maybe I need to simply steer clear of the conversations that deal critically with other religions?

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

There is an English expression, " Jack of all trades, master of none ". It referred originally to people who can turn their hand to a number of tasks , but had not served an apprenticeship.There are many people who are open hearted, who have a real interest in a number of spiritual paths but have never done the apprenticeship. Of course the analogy is only partial because most of us in this life will always be apprentices, but apprenticeship for Buddhists is practising and doing the concommitant sutta study , its going for Refuge, with the implication that you will not take refuge in speculative beliefs or "gods". Its receiving instruction from the Sangha and/or a teacher. In other words if the apprenticeship is properly undertaken it leads to a focus on the Dhamma and away from comparitive religion as a kind of hobby interest.The Dhamma is a complete path, which calls for a complete commitment.

The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.